Obama reiterated that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy

LONDON -- President Barack Obama reiterated that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it takes steps to prove its aspirations are peaceful.


If Iran has the right to nuclear energy why don'y US citizens have the same right? Are US aspirations not peacefull now that Mr. Obama is president?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...200947_pf.html

[Skybird]

Nobody has a solution to how to stop them from going either civil or militarily nuclear. That they indeed need additional energy sources, is known since a longer time now. A conventional military strike cannot stop their program, with it's key installations scattered around well-hidden deep bunkers and inside mountains with precise coordinates that are not known and hidden somewhere inside very huge areals declared to belong to this or that installation. So how to place that bunker-busting MOAB with the needed precision? Conventional strikes only can delay it a bit, at a very high economic and political costs. Nuclear strikes at their nuclear installation and research sites nobody would accept, or will to carry out, maybe with the exception of Israel, which by that would threaten it's very own existence due to inner riots and unrest with the Palestinian Israelis - not Iranian nukes, no war wit its neighbours, but inner unrest and changing demographics are the most likely threat to its future existence.

Since Iran knows that it is in the winning seat, why should they stop? Is it wise if we demand them to act stupidly and against their best interest? Time is on their side. They are almost immune to intimidations and threads. They can close the Hormuz Straits when they want, by missiles, submarines, maybe small attack boats, and especially mines.

One has allowed the situation to develope to where it now is. One played too long too many too foolish diplomatic games. One traded nuclear technology around for too long, and did not enough to get russia and china into the boat to prevent proliferation. One has not done enough to monitor and draconically punish companies delivering them the needed hightech in violation of embragos. One did not enough to prevent the flow of know-how into certain parts of the world, and globally. - In a way the situation with Iran is the other side of the medal that on the first side reads: unlimited freedom and liberty for everybody. Just demanding and wishing that others not being like oneself should copy one's own social model and political democracy - is not enough. people are different, people want to be different, and people resist to becoming all the same.

Too much talk too litte real action. Is that what you are saying Skybird?
If so I agree.

[Skybird]

Not exactly. I said that our past actions - and lack of - , and our propagated "system" and ways-of-doing, have directly helped to create the current situation over the past 20 years or longer. with regard to Iraq and Pakistan as well as Palestine, one could look back even further.

From a western standpoint regarding the modern present, there were three major sins:

1. the for most total lack of any ME policy by the United States worth the name (and the lacking realism in the good wishes of Europeans that replaced their attempts of a realistic diplomacy, both the American and European policies are just variations on the same theme: lacking a realistic orientation),

2. the non-reaction to the alarm warning of the oil crisis in the 70s - a lesson nobody wanted to learn for the sake of evading costly action and still sacking that short-termed profit at the cost of future chances,

and 3.) and though subtle still most profound: the opening of doors and gates for Islam to enter the Western hemisphere in strength by adjusting the church's attitude towards Islam during the second Vatikan council in the early 60s, since that made it falling back from the challenges Islam raises even inside our own western home nations. The shift in the church's policy soon was mirrored by political shifts as well, for example by propagating the opening to the East and the indiscriminated invitation of guest workers.

Not to mention our dependance on oil - without which Islam would not play a powerful role in the world today, and most arab nations would still be the poor the mess they degenerated into since the appearance of Muhammad, which meant to turn their superiority from the medieval stage into a slow, long lasting civilisational fall: if not depending on their oil for so long, we would be able to isolate and if needed: fight the Islamic world today. See point 2.).

The rivalry between Russia and the West during the cold war, as well as china's interest to interfere at the West's costs, also helped past historic trends in favour of the Islamic world.

Additonally, with us wanting to be open and liberal societies, one also has to point out that the more openess there is towards the other, the more you put yourself into reach of him. That is nice when the other is just your loving wife, maybe, but it is something different when it is another culture that by its views and values is incompatible and directly hostile towards your own cultural views and values, and despises and understands to be weakness what you value and consider to be your strength. In principle we run a policy of appeasement since half a century. In a way, the situation we are in today, is just the logical consequence.

[SteamWake]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152355

[FIREWALL]

This isn't anything new. Whenever we have a Dove Democrat in office all the little Dick-taters rattle their little swords.

[bookworm_020]

No one is saying that they don't have a right to the use of nuclear power, but they have rejected any oversight of their operation and offer in help building a non breeder reactor and supply of fuel.

No one is trying to stop them from having nuclear power, but trying to avoid them from becoming nuclear armed!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

but they have rejected any oversight of their operation and offer in help building a non breeder reactor and supply of fuel.

Where are you getting this information from?

Iran is still under the auspices of the NPT and currently has IAEA inspectors in country. The reactors, with the exception of the IR-40 are under IAEA safeguards.

The last major inspection of Iran's declared nuclear facilities was accomplished in November 2008 .

There is negotiation about the IR-40 Reactor, where the Iranians are taking the position that a DIQ (Design Information Questionnaire) was not needed because the IR-40 can't accept fissile material. The IAEA is in negotiation on this aspect since January 2009.

Iran has not refused IAEA inspection and safeguards on its declared nuclear industries. There are disagreements and challenges, but the IAEA still has a presence in Iraq.

WWW.Iaea.org for their reports.

[sunvalleyslim]

They need nuclear energy....like I need a "Hot Foot".....

[Fr8monkey]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

This isn't anything new. Whenever we have a Dove Democrat in office all the little Dick-taters rattle their little swords.

Yeah, what we really need is a Facist Republican to call the Iranians 'Evil" to show them who's the real cowboy diplomat... Get real, and get ovet it already.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Fr8monkey

Yeah, what we really need is a Facist Republican to call the Iranians 'Evil" to show them who's the real cowboy diplomat... Get real, and get ovet it already.

Just curious, but do you know what Facism is? Because if so, you would know that Obama is as close to facist as this country as ever gotten, according to the actual definition, especially economically.

[Fr8monkey]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Just curious, but do you know what Facism is? Because if so, you would know that Obama is as close to facist as this country as ever gotten, according to the actual definition, especially economically.

Yes I am familiar with what fascism is, I minored in history in college.



Definition: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


Now, please give me the following:

1. Your definition.
2. Which president in the last 50 years was the most dictitorial?
3. Which president in the last 50 years used fear and terror to supress the opposition?
4. Which president in the last 50 years used a policy of beligerence and nationalism to further his political goals?


Stop reading the talking points and use your own brain... Kool-aid is bad for you!

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Fr8monkey

Yeah, what we really need is a Facist Republican to call the Iranians 'Evil" to show them who's the real cowboy diplomat... Get real, and get ovet it already.

Hrm "Call the Iranians 'evil'" I dont seem to remember that part.

[Fr8monkey]

Con's have such a short term memory. Ever hear of the 'Axis of Evil'?
Someone about 6 or 7 years ago made the comment about Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Hmmm, musta been some Democrat Hitler wanna-be.
Soon after the comment was made, North Korea and Iran started their Nuclear weapons programs.

[SteamWake]

Describing an 'axis of evil' and calling the Iranian people evil are two very different things.

Dont forget that at the time Sadam was still in power.